[Members] XMPP Standards Foundation on Facebook

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Dec 15 20:28:40 CST 2010

On 12/15/10 5:54 PM, jehan at zemarmot.net wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:54:09 -0500, bear <bear42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:21, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun Dec 12 12:23:53 2010, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
>>>> I also agree 100% to the rest of what Jehan said.
>>> Likewise.
>> Agree also
> Ok so since this XSF group on Facebook has been exposed on this members
> mailing, we have had 4 members (Jonathan Schleifer, Dave Cridland, Bear
> and myself) against this project AS OFFICIAL (it seems we agree to say
> this is ok if people from XSF or the XMPP community want to gather
> unofficially on Facebook: of course the XSF has nor the right nor the
> goal to decide how or on which service its members spend their time). On
> the other side, nobody — except obviously Ludovic Bocquet in the
> original message — went publicly for the idea.
>>> "Official" to my mind means with the sanction of the membership (as
>>> determined by majority vote), or, more typically, by the Board.
>>> I've no objection to any unofficial XMPP-related presence anywhere, and
>>> indeed to an unofficial point on Facebook for members also on Facebook to
>>> befriend, or like, or whatever it is one does on Facebook. But I know for a
>>> fact this has not been discussed by the members as a whole, and I'm not
>>> aware of it being discussed by the Board.
>>> Furthermore, I would hope - for the reasons Jehan and JS said - that the
>>> Board would not have sanctioned such a thing.
>> It has not been discussed by the board that I know of unless it's a
>> carry-over from the prior board.
> In the meantime, unless any of us "missed" some information there has
> been no vote from the members (if there has been one, it has definitely
> not been advertized on the members list), nor the board (here I may
> personally have missed this because I don't know all activities from the
> board, but I know for sure the Board did not tell about such a vote on
> the members list as well).
> Yet what do I see just a few minutes ago while browsing the website?
> You guess it, you get it: a Facebook badge (I don't know since when it
> is, but I think this is very new). I also see a Linkedin badge next to
> the Facebook one, and I personally don't agree on it either. I really
> think this is a little chocking especially as several members wrote
> against the proposition and none of the members who want this even tried
> to enter a discussion to convince us. Instead we are simply presented
> with a "fait accompli".
> Would it be possible to have more explanation about this please because
> I don't think this kind of arbitrary decision is really the way we want
> the XSF to work (or I have really been misleaded)?
> Thanks.

Personally I am "eFaced" and "LinkedOut". I prefer not to use such
centralized services, and I have grave concerns about their privacy
policies (or lack thereof).


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20101215/b68d1b00/attachment.bin>

More information about the Members mailing list